harassment, and deprivation of freedom, of individuals through contrived arrests on spurious charges,

widespread corruption involving senior public and uniformed figures,

the deprivation of the right to Freedom of Expression, and the abu se thereof,

violent, unconstitutional, invasions and seizures of property and farms, and

deliberate attempts to derail the Constitution-making process.

The month of August has seen a notable increase in breaches in these two areas:

open subversion of legal or administrative processes for political benefit, and

deliberate non-cooperation with the other parties to the GPA agreement, or the deliberate undermining – or abuse of – other persons or parties for political ends.

Zanu PF’s favourite political tool – violence – stills plagues Zimbabwe’s populace to the extent that it is almost accepted as a norm by the majority. Our first listed breach in Issue 8 reveals that the government has! turned deaf ears to the warnings by the Kimberly Process that the sales of Zimbabwean diamonds may be suspended internationally after the international body directed that Zimbabwe’s diamond fields should be demilitiarised. The troops are still there, and rights abuses and smuggling continue unabated.

On a more local level, a young man was murdered by seven Zanu PF thugs in Macheke after going to the home of a local Zanu PF chairman to ask for his outstanding wages. He was subjected to a brutal beating and torture before he died, and his body dumped on a road to make it look like an accident. One wonders how an ‘accident’ explains wounds made by redhot iron rods through the stomach. It is alleged that Minister Didymus Mutasa aided the release of the perpetrators, who only received a fine as their punishment…”

As you may know, I told Bob Ainsworth some weeks ago that I intended to step down as Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to the Defence Secretary before the start of the new parliamentary term. This seems to me the least disruptive time to do that. I have been privileged to work as PPS to four senior Labour ministers in four government departments and now feel that I can make my best contribution to the Labour effort in parliament by concentrating on helping, as a regular back-bencher, to show that Labour remains sound on matters of Defence.

Labour was returned to power in 1997 on the back of your great success in turning the Economy from a weakness into a strength for Labour. Our continuing success in helping people from all parts of society become more prosperous, while helping the least well-off most, is built upon that. More quietly, during the 90’s, Labour’s then shadow defence team showed how Labour had become, after the disaster of the early 1980s, ‘sound’ on Defence. It seems to me that your personal success on the economy won the deal in 1997, while colleagues at Defence sealed it.

We are now, I think, once again at a critical time for Labour and Defence. The Conservatives, of course opportunistically, think they can convince the public that we have lost our empathy with the Defence community. We must not allow this to happen. I know that you have great commitment to our armed forces and this was clear when you visited Afghanistan this week, yet there seem to me to be some problems which need fixing with the greatest urgency.

As you know, two Black Watch soldiers gave their lives during your visit. I do not think the public will accept for much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets. Nor do I think we can continue with the present level of uncertainty about the future of our deployment in Afghanistan.

I think we must be much more direct about the reality that we do punch a long way above our weight, that many of our allies do far too little, and that leaving the field to the United States would mean the end of NATO as a meaningful proposition. The British people have a proud history of facing such realities. They understand the importance of the allied effort in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I think they would appreciate more direct approach by politicians. We also need to make it clear that our commitment in Afghanistan is high but time limited. It should be possible now to say that we will move off our present war-footing and reduce our forces there substantially during our next term in government.

We also need a greater geopolitical return from the United States for our efforts. For many, Britain fights; Germany pays, France calculates; Italy avoids. If the United States values each of these approaches equally, they will end up shouldering the burden by themselves. The first place to start is an acceptance this week by them, and by the Afghanistan electoral authorities, that there must be a second round in the elections there. I do not think the British people will support the physical risk to our servicemen and women unless they can be given confidence that Afghanistan’s government has been properly elected and has a clear intent to deal with the corruption there which has continued unabated in recent years.

Most important of all, we must make it clear to every serviceman and woman, their families and the British public that we give their well-being the highest political priority. Behind the hand attacks by any Labour figure on senior service personnel are now, to the public, indistinguishable from attacks on the services themselves. Conversely, in my view we should allow our service personnel greater latitude to voice their views on matters which make distinctions between defence and politics pointless.

I believe the next election is ours to win, thanks greatly to your personal great economic success. But we cannot win unless we grip defence. Above all, Labour must remember that service folk and their families are our people. We say that we honour them for their risk, bravery and sacrifice and we must at literally all costs continue to show by our actions that we mean it.

I intend to do what modest amount I can to help from the back-benches.

Why on earth was the NHS allowed to hire a bunch of costly consultants to produce a review of the NHS promoting job cuts? How come the ministry could not intervene then to halt this project?

THE GUARDIAN: “The NHS will have to shed around 137,000 jobs – almost a tenth of its workforce – if it is to meet planned efficiency savings of £20bn, the Department of Health has been warned.The severity of cutbacks needed by 2014 was contained in advice presented by management consultants McKinsey to the government this spring.The content of the document, obtained by the Health Service Journal, was not disputed today but the health minister Mike OBrien insisted the government had already rejected the proposal.He said: “In core frontline services, like maternity, nursing and primary care, we need more staff rather than fewer.”Attempting to distance themselves from the report, ministerial sources suggested the review had been commissioned without full ministerial authority…”

This is difficult, Has Cameron got a point, are we bending over backwards to dance to Gaddafi’s tune? I know there is some controversy over this issue but we usually expect terrorists to claim a triumph in terrorist outrages the strange thing is if there were others they have remained remarkably silent so we could asumme that Megrahi is guilty. Nick Robinson discuses the impact of this most strange decision that an SNP government minister has apparently taken.

If we are going to begin to sup with the devil then that spoon is going have to be very, very long!

David Cameron: “I think this is wrong and it’s the product of some completely nonsensical thinking in my view. If there’s a view that the conviction is in some way unsafe, then the proper process is an appeal and the presentation of new evidence. But if this is about genuine release on compassionate grounds I think it is wrong. This man was convicted of murdering 270 people. He showed no compassion to them. They weren’t allowed to go home and die with their relatives in their own bed and I think this is a very bad decision.”..”

In the current frenzy over healthcare reform in the USA we are accustomed to wild illogical and irrational statements and discussion but US rightwingnuts brazenly showing weapons at a presidential event seems not only lunatic but criminal. The story below explains:

Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday’s event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

BERLIN/PARIS (Reuters) - French air accident authority BEA said its probe into the Germanwings crash would study "systemic weaknesses" that might have led to the disaster, such as psychological profiling and cockpit door locks.

My blog is dead. Long live the new blog. Or to put it another way, my page - and those of other BBC bloggers - is having a makeover. So if you don't want to read on, and you simply want to read my latest post, click here. The reason for the change is to bring together more of my output in one place. So on the new page, you'll find many of my TV and […]

Britain is standing by to give more money to the IMF so that it can, in turn, lend more money to Eurozone countries like Greece, Italy or Spain who are struggling to service their debts. The government now believes, I'm told, that there are only three ways out of the current crisis - one they hope for, one they fear and a third they are ready to accept. […]